[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP

2019-12-29 16:09:19
As I'm nominally on vacation for this past and the upcoming week
(where "vacation" is a relative term), I'm not keeping up with this
discussion as I might have done.

But I'd like to throw in my opinion about how we should handle the
IP-literals question:

I'd like to see us keep to a plan of folding in errata, doing some
sensible reorganization, otherwise minimizing changes, and
republishing 5321 with a target of "Internet Standard", which it
clearly is.

I'd like to see us then address some of these other issues in a
separate document, which can go out as BCP or Proposed Standard
(applicability statement) -- and there are other options as well --
that would aim to give normative advice about these sorts of things
but that is not part of the Internet-Standard level spec at this

Is there substantial objection to taking that approach?

Barry, doing AD-like things...

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> 


My impression is that discussions are now either going around in
circles or have deteriorated into a couple of people repeating
themselves in attempts to convince, or at least explain to,
others.  I wouldn't presume to try to stop those discussions,
but want to see if we can move forward.

That impression may be wholly incorrect but I think it is, or
should be, clear to everyone that we've significantly departed
from the fairly narrow questions of whether it is appropriate
for IETF servers to reject any mail session opening attempt that
uses an IP address literal in the EHLO command and what 5421
actually says (and was intended to say) about acceptance or
rejection of address literals.

In the hope that it will help us make progress, at least toward
getting some focus on getting a WG put together and/or clarity
from the ADs about how (or if) they would like to move forward,
I've worked up a new draft of rfc5321bis that adds a appendix
(G) about outstanding issues identified in the last several
weeks to the appendix about issue identified in errata (H.1 in
the -02 version, formerly G.1 in the -01 one).  It does _not_
propose solutions, only identifies topics that need discussion
about whether or not we should deal with them and, if so, where.
I will probably post that version tomorrow or over the weekend.
If anyone has more or less broad issues that should be
identified in that section that have not come up either in
errata or recent discussions, mentioning them RSN so I can add
them to the list would be helpful.  The list so far is:

   Appendix G.  Other Outstanding Issues
     G.1.  IP address literals
     G.2.  Meaning of "MTA" and Related Terminology
     G.3.  Originator, or Originating System, Authentication


ietf-smtp mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>